Friday, November 30, 2007

Harman About to Admit Guilt

The Harman campaign is about to issue a statement - she did extend the mortgage in order to fund the campaign. It wasn't registered with the Electoral Commission. Her campaign finance manager Anita Gale only checked

with the register of members interests not the electoral commission whether to register the extension to the mortgage (duh! That was one of the first things I checked when doing tje declarations for DD's leadership campaign). The law is specific. HERE are the regulations:

Any loan above £1000 to a regulated donee any part of which is used for political purposes MUST be declared within 30 days. The mortgage is included. See this part of the rules:...

3.10 If any part of the value of a loan is used in connection with the regulated donee's political activities, it is a regulated loan. This includes loans taken out for any other purpose (e.g. a personal credit card), any part of which is used in connection with the donee's political activities.

What is her annual salary? Lots, no doubt. Does Jack have a paying job? Presumably. Is there still money in her privileged background? In any case why are they in such a financial hole? Simple mismanagement is an obvious candidate, given the way the government behaves as a whole.

So she has a twofold reason for clinging to office -- political and financial. When she goes, who will employ her, assuming she is even employable?

Yet this woman is one of the cabal of deadbeats and nonentities who have the temerity to lecture me on the way to run my life; who tell me what I can and cannot lawfully say; who would even regulate my thoughts if they could.

The nemesis now engulfing Labour is long overdue. Particularly pleasing is the spectacle of Jack Dromey being sidelined and humiliated. I remember his bullying, ranting hubris during the Grunwick dispute: his leather jacket, his jutting chin, his expressed hatred for ordinary middle-class people going about their affairs and minding their own business.

Good riddance to the pair of them. They won't be in the spotlight much longer.

Did I miss something? I thought she took out a commercial loan at an eye watering 14%, rather than re-mortgaging her home. Good job she's not been given a Treasury brief. She'd have the country on the phone to Picture Loans within weeks. "Yes, we do have a mortgage..."Those of you who have day jobs probably won't be familiar with that advert.

Iain, can you tell us if DD had to remortgage his home or pawn his wedding ring to fund his campaign? ;-)Also, why did DD drop his support for an English Parliament as soon as Cameron became leader, hmmm?

Dennis - I think that she simply didn't want to invest her own money in herself. Hence the upcoming fundraiser.

She borrowed money from the bank, illegally applied it to her campaign for the stupid "Deputy Leader" position and expected to pay off the loan with money come by at the fundraiser. Why cash in a financial instrument when you can raise the money this way instead?

What now? Who will be the next deadbeat to occupy the post of "Deputy Leader" of Labour?

The qualifications appear to be a sincere dedication to corruption, few working brain cells, although a feral eye for the main chance, and a dedication to a life financed by people with real jobs. The deeply talentless Margaret Becket might like to trot forward. Or there's always Patricia Hewitt, who did such a sterling job at the NHS.

Still haven't withdrawn your allegation about Brown having broken the letter of the law (laws don't have spirits so this is as good as accusing him of breaking the law) - I trust we shall be spared anymore of your further legal interpretations given your obvious lack of expertise in the area.

Your comment at 10:05 this morning is interesting - are you saying that Bearwood made the donation on behalf of Ashcroft - if so hope you checked that Ashcroft was on the Electoral Register - otherwise you may have committed the same offence as Peter Watt.

The URL is too long so that it runs over to a 2nd line and doesn't work; here's a tinyurl instead: http://tinyurl.com/3awuqg I'm sure a lot of yr readers will wish to refresh their memories by studying this interesting document.

Significant splits opening up in Labour about union funding - on PM tonight Graham Allen MP arguing for a clean break with this position supported for past 7 days by ubiquitous Blairite drone Matthew Taylor. This is the strategy of those articulating the line that the crisis reflects 'a problem across all parties' and is 'bad for our democracy'.

On the other hand the Guardian website is reporting PLP chair Tony Lloyd MP speaking upfor union funding as 'something to be proud of' and he is backed up by other Labour stalwarts - who are honest enough to recognise the current donations scandal as a manifestation of political corruption in Labour's highest echelons.

Could someone please tell me if I am remembering correctly? Did Harriet's sister (a barrister/judge?) not get found out for passing confidential information to Harriet who was then the Solicitor General a few years ago? I think that the sister resigned/was sacked and had to pay a large fine. Don't remember what Harriet's punishment was. If I am correct, does this not show a lack of judgement and moral behaviour going back a number of years?

Talking about Labour guilt, I thought you might all like to know that Councillor Miranda Grell of the London Borough of Waltham Forest has this evening lost her appeal against conviction for election offences in regard to her falsely telling voters that her (gay) LibDem opponent was a peadophile. She will now lose her seat and a by election will take place. Whether or not she will also now be sacked from her job as Nicky Gavron's pa, from which she is currently suspended, is another matter however.

Yorkshire Lass - Yes, it was around three years ago, I think? Quite a pair.

Thanks, Undercover: From the Beeb - "The Harriet Harman campaign was under the impression that she did not need to register her mortgage with either the Electoral Commission or the Register of Members' Interests,"

Given that it was reported by the Beeb, this is to clearly be the official line. It was all an innocent mistake? But of course! Yorkshire Lass mentions another innocent mistake by Harriet and her sister a couple of years back.

Copydude - Fat women don't qualify for high maintenance protectiveness from men. Whether she aims her large cleavage at older men or not is not the point. The point is, do they care?

You have clearly never met a high maintenance woman. They are in a class by themselves. Self-absorbed doesn't begin to describe it. Trust me. They don't have jobs, much less careers, except marrying extremely rich, indulgent men.

The only possible way Brown can survive is if he starts sacking these people that have broken the law. Remember he sat in the background for 10 years while Blair ran riot with our country, and Brown did nothing. I would suggest Brown is a very weak man who is not fit to lead, a bully boy in his own area with people who cannot fight back. Anyone who was above board and worth his salt would have had the long knives out and started the cull. The Labour party is finnished after this but boy it will not let go as they enjoy being the masters.

When you think how the press led by the BBC savaged the Tories for far less than this. It shows what influence Labour has, as the coverage has been far less with the BBC and many papers looking for any story to replace donergate headlines. Many in the Labour set up are ex journos and it shows.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330193980849#descriptionUrgent have at look at this on Ebay, it's a Teddy Bear for sale. You'll need to be quick before it's pulled like the Data Discs. The Q&A are very funny.

Is it a sub-prime mortgage by any chance? How apposite.By the way, there is a war on and I bet our people in Iraq and Afghanistan are hurrying back from patrols to find out the latest twist.Brown has a bit of the Blair inside him ie "I am good therefore everything I do is good and anyone who disagrees is evil."

yorkshirelass,The High Court under Sir Hugh Park found Harriet Harman guilty of contempt for disclosing Home Office documents in 1981 and his decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal. It is my understanding that she was later cleared, alas I think you should read into the case and media reports for there are many floating around. It's not good, in the slightest.

Johnny Norfolk - You ignore Brown's character defect: he is weak, defensive and disconnected from others. He's an obsessive. I think he's an autist. All those long years of fiddling with the British national budget and making it into a frenzied Jackson Pollack mess. He makes Andy Warhol look warm and humourous.

He's disconnected. He feels entitled to be PM of Great Britain. And he feels his entitlement is more important than the entitlement of British citizens to vote, for example, on the dissolution of their ancient sovereignty if he feels it will result in a defeat for himself - the most important person in Britain. We will never know how he came by this notion.

He may hang on by his very white teeth until Spring, but I smell fraticide ... The bruvvers are watching.

Yorshirelass: Sarah Harman's a solicitor, and she was suspended by the solicitors disciplinary tribunal for three months after being held in contempt of court for disclosing case papers to Harriet. She resigned her recordership too - a post as a part-time judge. Here's alink.

There was no penalty for Harriet - she did pass the papers on to others but it's not clear she knew Sarah had disclosed them in contempt - and anyway, Harriet may well not still be on the solicitors roll.

Yorkishirelass, Harman's LM, Kris: I can confirm Harriet hasn't got a practising certificate: if you search at the Law Society under Harman, you get 20 - including Sarah Marigold (!) Harman, but no Harriet. There are no Dromeys. So no suspension or striking off.

Harman's LM: are you serious about Sarah and the ECHR? And are you sure? I'm not aware of it... Harriet's won at least once there, but if Sarah did, its news to me.

I can’t believe this latest Labour sleaze scandal is just running, and running like a soap opera with an ever-growing cast of characters/potentially guilty parties.

As Johnny Norfolk says: “When you think how the press led by the BBC savaged the Tories for far less than this. It shows what influence Labour has...” – I would also suggest the overpowering influence is the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation, and they are attempting to play down all these Labour sleaze scandals. Indeed, it’s a disgrace we are forced by law to pay an annual tax for the BBC to peddle Lefty – and especially anti-Conservative – propaganda. Even worse is so many of the general public ‘trust’ the BBC, and believe their ‘unbiased’ reports. [The BBC is in constant contravention of its charter that states quite categorically they are supposed to be politically impartial!]

And when Johnny Norfolk says: “The only possible way Brown can survive is if he starts sacking these people that have broken the law” – he’ll have to start by sacking himself! As for the statement that Comrade Brown will co-operate with the police – as you would say Iain, this is beyond parody!

However, I have a short-term solution for this intrusive bunch of Commie control freaks who are always ordering us around – and who penalise the law abiding and reward the criminals. We must turn the tables on them. I suggest installing cameras into their offices – as our revenge for ever-more draconian and disproportionate penalties on motorists. Every time they act ‘illegally’ their photograph is taken – and emailed instantly to the right-wing newspapers – for publication purposes!

Harriet will be a "Parliamentary" silk, anyway: not a real one. I've never understood it but lawyers in Parliament seem to magically turn into silks just on the basis of being lawyers. No real lawyers (imagine me adopting a very snooty tone) take that kind of thing seriously. You just feel embarrassed for them.

Head of Legal,My tone, however misplaced is related to being under wine not coffee, (;-)) but I will humbly concede. "Embarrassed for them" is spot on -- my wish is towards a more public knowledge of this farce of a distinction.

Having studied further into Nigel Ley, well... I see your hitherto unaware point. :-)

I'm not a lawyer by any means (the alias is obviously inflammatory) and my understanding has increased threefold -- and I thank you greatly.

Sure, have a go at her for being slack in organising things, but if you call for her resignation, you make a rod for the back of the first Tory to screw up the rules, and there will be one, we all know that.

Nice to see plenty of lawyers out in force here tonight. That means they're not screwing money out of their clients, which is a small victory for the rest of the human race. Thatch never quite did get round to them, did she?

For more on the greed of greedy communist nomenklatura apparachik Harriet Harman, read today's Simon Heffer in The Telegraph and go to "Almost donated my brolly". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/01/do0102.xml&page=2

With each passing day so my impression of the incompetence,and dishonesty of the Labour Party, and its government of this county, grows. With each new rumour of duplicity there's a growing conviction that this rumour is true. The Labour Party appears to be drifting, rudderless, on a sea of sleaze.

The integrity of its leader, Mr. Brown,has been repeatedly challenged. It's no longer sufficient for Labour MPs to trawl round the TV studios expressing shock horror that anybody could ever dream of challenging Mr. Brown's integrity.The mantle of integrity is not a God given right. Integrity, like respect has to be earned.

Senior members of the Labour Party and the Government have been accused of breaking the law.Indeed, have been accused of acting as if the law doesn't apply to them.For years, certain members have acted with the almost unbelievable arrogance of pre-revolution aristocracy.

In the first months of Mr.Brown's premiership, disaster upon disaster has revealed itself.

What, though has Mr.Brown done to restore confidence in his self-appointed right to govern? When the news first broke of the donor scandal, he did, eventually,give an impression of action. He admitted that Watt's actions had been illegal and he had sacked him. Whether in this Nulab world of spin and smoking mirros, Watt had resigned, or Brown had indeed sacked him is a moot point. No matter, Mr. Brown had given an impression of action, perhaps even of integrity.

Since that day though, he has done nothing to show the voters that he is in control. He rules over a government and party that has among its senior members, Harriet Harman,apparently and allegedly guilty of a number of criminal actions, Wendy Alexander, self-confessed breaker of the rules of accepting donations and therefore, by her own admissions, an unsentenced criminal; Mendelsohn, chosen by Mr.Brown to lead his election fund raising team, guilty, by his own admission, of covering up, some say for months, the fact that illegal donations were being accepted by Labour Party officials; Peter Hain, conveniently forgetting to register a £5,000 donation, remembering only when it looked as if the police might be investigating his records. How many more? We don't know, and may never know. The lingering smell of rotten fish hangs in the air though. It will continue to do so unless and until Mr.Brown shows so evidence of leadership.

Mr.Brown must request Wendy Alexander's resignation. He should demand Harriet Harman's immediate resignation. If they refuse to resign, then Mr.Brown should make public the fact that they have so refused , and should categorically state that he has no confidence in their continuing to be members of his government.Peter Hain, together with all of the others who stood for election for the Deputy Leadership of the Party should have their accounts independently audited.

THEN, and only then, will Mr. Brown be able to assume a mantle of integrity. THEN, and only then will MR.Brown be able to put Black November behind him, and start, what he been claiming to be, a new era.

Most of the labour MPs are lawyers,they have worked in law,they write laws for us but they keep breaking them hmmmm bunch of criminals then, ignorance is no defence nor is "the spirit" rubbish.If gordo doesnt sack them and call an election he will be a lame duck from here till he is forced out.I think this party is truly over.

Anon @ 2.20 - surely the point is that the laws these very senior Labour people have been breaking are not some half-forgotten statutes from 1392 that were instigated to curb the ambitions of John of Gaunt and his team -

these extremely complex instruments relating to the disclosure of Party funding were drawn up and introduced by this Labour Govt, and many of those caught in the headlights now were part of the administration in 2001 and 2006.

Do you honestly believe that were any of us who post here to miss an aspect of our tax affairs, HMRC would accept an excuse such as "it just got overlooked" or "I didn't realise I also had to fill in Section 36.4.82"?

HMRC would, as is their wont, jump on us in glee, make our lives a misery, and fine us.

Really, I am most concerned about the health of all our wonderful NuLab politicos. There seems to have been a mass outbreak of amnesia amongst them - is it catching? It must be - something in the water at Westminster perhaps, but only affects Labour, how odd.

In fact, things seem to have become so serious I wonder how any of them can find their way home without using a ball of string......

As no one has yet been sacked for all the criminal activity involved in this latest episode of socialist sleaze and corruption, my prediction is, no one will be.

They will have the insufferable arrogance to stick it out, insisting they did nothing wrong, and even if they did, it was an oversight. And the story will get smaller by the day until it vanishes in a puff of smoke and Harriet Harman still got her office and ministerial car and privileges - many of which she is not entitled to - and all the rest of them will still be in situ.

This is the arrogance of the Soviet nomenklatura. Brown has to be forced out. As subtlety doesn't work with him, it should be brutal. I think we need to know much more about his private life.